`Big and Important Things' in IR: Structural Realism and the Neglect of Changes in Statehood
| Published date | 01 June 2009 |
| Date | 01 June 2009 |
| Author | Georg Sørensen |
| DOI | 10.1177/0047117809104636 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
‘BIG AND IMPORTANT THINGS’ 223
‘Big and Important Things’ in IR: Structural Realism
and the Neglect of Changes in Statehood
Georg Sørensen
Abstract
Structural realism has important insights to offer regarding the current balance of power
and its effects on world politics. But structural realism is less ready to analyze changes
in statehood and their implications for international relations. States are not ‘like units’
and anarchy does not always mean self-help. A richer concept of structure which includes
economic power, political–military power, and international norms gives us a better take
on the ways in which international forces affect domestic structures of states. In particular,
they help us detect the weak states in the developing world, and the postmodern states in
the OECD world. In weak states the classical security dilemma has been turned on its head:
instead of domestic order and international threat there is domestic threat and international
order. In postmodern states violent external threat has been dramatically reduced because
these states make up a security community.
Keywords: critique of structural realism, IR theory, security dilemma, states in IR,
world order
Introduction
Where is the world heading? Considerable confusion has surrounded this question
since the end of the Cold War. There is a war on terror going on, but there is also
a ‘liberal moment’, elements of a ‘clash of civilizations’, in some ways a ‘coming
anarchy’, maybe a replacement of ‘the end of history’ by ‘the return of history’,
perhaps combined with a ‘new world order’; recently, a serious fi nancial crisis has
demanded our attention.1 Wide-ranging political and economic change invites all
kinds of speculations; exotic theories, not always substantially connected to the real
world, compete for our attention. There appears to be no end to the novelties and
transformations that we have overlooked. ‘New, new, change, change’; academic
refl ections about IR ‘are beginning to sound more and more like American political
campaigns’, one observer quipped already in 1994.2
Some would argue that this happens because major existing theories, including
realism and structural realism (sometimes referred to as neorealism), have too little
to offer when it comes to analyze and understand the most important aspects of
current world politics. In particular, structural realism in the version of Kenneth
Waltz may well be set on explaining ‘a few big and important things’,3 but for all its
focus on systemic balance of power and relative capabilities it is often charged with
having failed to notice crucial developments. Is Waltzian structural realism a reliable
© The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Vol 23(2): 223–239
[DOI: 10.1177/0047117809104636]
224 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 23(2)
guide to understanding current world politics? My answer will be a resounding ‘Yes
and No’. ‘Yes’ in the sense that structural realism has important insights to offer
regarding the current balance of power and its effects on world politics. ‘No’ in the
sense that changes in statehood have taken place with profound consequences for
international affairs; these changes are not addressed by structural realism because,
regardless of its preoccupation with sovereign states, it does not have a developed
theory of the sovereign state and can thus only address changes in statehood with
great diffi culty. But let us begin with the strong side of structural realism: balance
of power analysis.4
Unipolarity and the balance of power
It is sometimes forgotten that structural realism is not a theory about everything,
a point explicitly emphasized by Waltz.5 It does not primarily aim to explain the
demise of the Soviet Union, the emergence of international terrorism, or even the
foreign policy of a certain state. Structural realism is a theory about the way in
which the systemic pressures expressed through the balance of power constrain the
behaviour of states. Whatever change there may have been, structural realism
emphasizes basic continuity as regards the international system: it remains a system
of independent political units with no central authority above them; therefore, the
system is anarchic. States want to survive and take measures to defend themselves.
But in a self-help system, ‘many of the means by which a state tries to increase its
security decrease the security of others’.6 This is the security dilemma; states face
it through instrumentally rational behaviour; they ‘think strategically about how to
survive in the international system’.7
Two basic options are available to states seeking security: preparing for self-
defence and/or seeking security-enhancing alliances with others. Since most states
face limitations in providing for self-defence, appropriate alliance strategies become
crucially important. In this game, states are constrained by the distribution of power in
the international system and the existing place of a given state within that distribution.
That is because differences of power – the relative distribution of capabilities – is the
most decisive determinant of state behaviour:
In a self-help system, states are differently placed by their power. States are
self-regarding units. State behaviour varies more with differences of power than
with differences in ideology, in internal structure of property relations, or in gov-
ernmental form. In self-help systems, the pressures of competition weigh more
heavily than ideological preferences or internal political pressures.8
According to structural realism, then, the pressures of competition depend on the
distribution of power. In a bipolar system, with two leading states signifi cantly
more powerful than any of their competitors, these two states are compelled to be
rivals. Lesser states will seek the alliance that offers maximum security and freedom
To continue reading
Request your trial